The Madness of the EPA Continues…
Sunday, Jan 15 2012

It really strikes me as odd when I hear the Environmentalist crowd demagoguery on protecting the earth “at ALL costs,” even if the cost is too great and may even do damage to the marketplace.

I came across an article recently from the Independent Institute on the Environmental Protection Agency trying to push gasoline and diesel fuel refiners to transition from the use of fossil fuels to using the alternative, cellulosic biofuel. The Orwellian Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is making this coercive push. This act required refiners of gasoline and diesel fuel to mix 6.6 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel into petrol products shipped to market in 2011. 6.6 million. This year the quota has been raised to 8.65 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel.

The problem with this alternative fuel, as pointed out by William Shugart of the Independent Institute, is it’s lack of commercial availability. Yet and still, the EPA waits with baited breath to lay down billion dollar penalties on the refiners for not meeting the quota of produced cellulosic biofuel. If that isn’t bad enough, with the quota for this year being raised, knowing that the quota can not be realistically met, this will mean deeper penalty costs.

If the intent of the EPA was to spur cellulosic biofuel as a profitable good, then their regulatory efforts have backfired. With the excess of penalties due to the oil refiners, the EPA will want to keep prices of the cellulosic biofuel artificially high which, economically, makes absolutely no sense and will only result in a waste of precious resources and money. If there is no desire nor profit-potential for the product on the market, then it will make no sense in investing money in it when the the resources can be spent on other useful means. Furthermore, it backs up the argument of the obsolescence of government investment and coercive compliance in private market affairs.

Having said that, this can be added to the list of regulatory nonsense brought on by the EPA and quite honestly, the best solution for this nonsense would be a full repeal of the EPA. Considering that it is the driving force of regulatory burden on businesses (namely, the smaller ones) in the market today, it would definitely lift a lot of the burden on the market and facilitate energy market practices.
-Nathan

Share this:

Like this:

Related

3 Responses to The Madness of the EPA Continues…

Again, I have to say, what good is market health and profits if we are sick environmentally? It’s protection is the number one priority! You can’t enjoy a vibrant marketplace with lung cancer or other diseases brought about by pollution. How can we opereate without an environmental regulatory agency? Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.

While I agree with you, there’s no reason that the EPA shouldn’t be abolished and let the states establish their own regulatory environmental agencies. Environmental concerns will be more soundly addressed, more fairly, and the people of each state will have a lot more power in solving what are often local problems.

Local problems need local solutions, not federal solutions. The EPA, at the very least, needs major reform such that cost/benefit analysis plays a larger role and states can perhaps “opt out” and form their own regulatory codes.

If you really want to call something “fox in the hen house.” Here’s an insightful read:

Who’s the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical companies? The nuclear power plants? If you guessed “none of the above,” you’d be correct. Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land. In addition, our government doesn’t even clean up its own garbage! In 1988, for example, the EPA demanded that the Departments of Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals — enough contamination to cost $100 billion in clean-up costs over 50 years! The EPA was simply ignored. No bureaucrats went to jail or were sued for damages. Government departments have sovereign immunity.

In 1984, a Utah court ruled that the U.S. military was negligent in its nuclear testing, causing serious health problems (e.g. death) for the people exposed to radioactive fallout. The Court of Appeals dismissed the claims of the victims, because government employees have sovereign immunity.

Hooker Chemical begged the Niagara Falls School Board not to excavate the land where Hooker had safely stored toxic chemical waste. The school board ignored these warnings and taxpayers had to foot a $30 million relocation bill when health problems arose. The EPA filed suit, not against the reckless school board, but against Hooker Chemical! Government officials have sovereign immunity.

Government, both federal and local, is the greatest single polluter in the U.S. This polluter literally gets away with murder because of sovereign immunity. Libertarians would make government as responsible for its actions as everyone else is expected to be. Libertarians would protect the environment by first abolishing sovereign immunity.

By turning to government for environmental protection, we’ve placed the fox in charge of the hen house — and a very large hen house it is! Governments, both federal and local, control over 40% of our country’s land mass. Unfortunately, government’s stewardship over our land is gradually destroying it.